Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-04-24
YOUNG DEMOCRACY.
A Strong Letter From a Strong Man.

TYLER, TEX, April t. 1857.
Hon, Barnett Gibbs and Others:
GENTLEMEN-YOu letter of invitation
has been received and considered. 1t is
not certain that l can attend the conven-
ton called for May at Dallas, but if ab-
sent it will not be due to any lack of
good wishes for the meeting.
The proposed constitutional amend
mend forbidding the manufacture, sale or
exchange of Intoxicating liquors is the
outgrowth of q feeling against saloons
which has been growing in Texas through
the efforts of faithful temperance workers
for more than dozen years, and if the
movement had not become so revolu-
tiJnary in character Ishould hesitate to
stand in OppOsition.>
But the Issue presented by the amend
ment is not "for or against Saloons"
though the prohibition leaders will art
fully seek to give the campaign this COM
-plexiOn. 1t has been favorite argument
with them that there is no middle ground
ION this subject, and this theory is main
tanned now in Texas in the face of a uni
form historical experience, and the pre-
ponderating current testimony that total
pr0hibi ion, wherever tried, has done no
more than drive the liquor traffic into
hiding places If this result be deemed
measure of good, it would be more manly
TO reach it by a law framed for that pur-
pose alone, without trespassIDg upon
rights treasured as inviolable by large
masses OF our fellow citizens.
The legislature just adjourned made
long steps forward in the regulation of
the saloon business. A stringent law
was enacted requiring the execution of a
bond for $4,000 by persons engaging in
that pursuit. and forbidding by heavy
penalties sales to minors, to habitual
druukards and to persons whom the
dealer is notified to refuse. Screens,
music, games of chance, indecent
pictures and other common sllurements
of the saloon are put under the ban,
and | have strong hopes of good
results from this wholesome statute
Should circumstances require it, the
awakened conscience of this age will
justify broader remedies, and the saloons
themselves will pass from existence as a
menace to pure suffrage and social order.
But policy aimed at the suppression of
saloons, and a policy like that involved in
the pending prohibition amendment are
vitally different. aud l cannot believe
that the time will ever come when a
people holding dear the traditions of the
founders of our government will give
their appreciation to the extreme measure
now submitted to their votes.
Under its terms man cannot make
his own wine from his own grapes for
his own table, aud state like Texas,
with vast territory which could be made
to flourish like the vineyards of Callfor-
MIA, is called upon to blight in the bud
possibilities such as Older nations would
spend millions to develop. y
II this meddlesOme interference with 1
the material resources of our country
was certain to be followed by tangible
moral advantages, it would still dt serve
opposition, as en- attempt to reach right
end through improper and dangerous
means, but when statistics are appealed to
they shatter even the common pre-
text for total prohibition that pauperism
and crime are reduced through It's iniu-
enCe. Maine has enjoyed the sweets of
paper prohibition for many years.. Since
l began this letter l have opened the
compendium of the Tenth Census, and
find that Alabama is nearer to Maine in
white population than any other state IN
the Union. and yet the records of these
white populations, compared together,
shows that Maine is burdened with about
twice as many prisoners and more than
four times as many paupers as the state
of Alabama. -
But regardless of practical results,
which I admit.to be largely speculatiFe,
prOhibitory laws are steps backward in
civilization. In the early ages, ingrati-
tude, lying and other vicious propenslties
were punished as public offenses, and it
took many hundred years for mankind to
grow up to the conclusion that govern
ment could not fairly do more than pro-
hibit those things which were directly
and invariably injurious to society, leaF-
ing consequential or debatable evils
to be fought by moral and relig-
ious Influences without the aid of state.
This view is now so much an accepted
fact in civilized countries, where free in
situations are still in the process of
growth, that a European ruler would
sooner think of hanging his subjects
without trial than deny them the right to
drink their own beverages of wine or
beer. But in this country where free
government is supposed to have reached